From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WhIWy-0006S9-2V for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 05 May 2014 13:02:04 +0000 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WhIWx-0000oC-2W for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 05 May 2014 13:02:04 +0000 Message-ID: <53678BBD.80607@oracle.com> Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 17:01:49 +0400 From: Stanislav Kholmanskikh MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <46CD92664333704E8A06E512A60A9E9F2AD2C0B12F@SGPMBX02.APAC.bosch.com> In-Reply-To: <46CD92664333704E8A06E512A60A9E9F2AD2C0B12F@SGPMBX02.APAC.bosch.com> Subject: Re: [LTP] - Kernel - tunable max_map_count test failure - 20140115-46-g2368cd4 List-Id: Linux Test Project General Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: "Diwakar Sharma (RBEI/ECF3)" , "ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net" On 05/05/2014 10:52 AM, Diwakar Sharma (RBEI/ECF3) wrote: > Hi, Hi! > > I was getting the max_map_count test failed. It looked to me failing at filter_map function. The platform I'm working on is an i686 architecture running on Virtualbox. > I added below additional macro condition and it's passing now. I want to understand if not including i686/386 was intentional originally for some reason? Also vdso part I added additionaly. > > #elif defined(__i686__) || defined(__i386__) > static int filter_map(char *line) > { > char buf[BUFSIZ]; > int ret; > > ret = sscanf(line, "%*p-%*p %*4s %*p %*2d:%*2d %*d %s", buf); > if (ret != 1) > return 0; > > return ((strcmp(buf, "[vdso]") == 0) | (strcmp(buf, "[vsyscall]") == 0)); > } > > > On another similar architecture (but the actual h/w board), the same code gives messages like "4096 map entries in total, but expected 4096 entries" and reported FAIL, implying map_count and max_maps is same ( Contrary to map_count==max_maps+1 ). How do we analyze this scenario? Does this mean it is not exceeding by one for sysctl setting? How to verify that. > Which kernel version do you use? I want to check this test case in my environment. Thanks. PS: Also look at this thread http://sourceforge.net/p/ltp/mailman/ltp-list/thread/52009D26.4030609%40oracle.com/ > > Thanks and Regards > Diwakar Sharma > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: > • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity > • Requirements for releasing software faster > • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now > http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce > _______________________________________________ > Ltp-list mailing list > Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is your legacy SCM system holding you back? Join Perforce May 7 to find out: • 3 signs your SCM is hindering your productivity • Requirements for releasing software faster • Expert tips and advice for migrating your SCM now http://p.sf.net/sfu/perforce _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list